Liberals Love Those Monuments

White Progressivism & Cultural Hegemony

The preservation of history is a scary thing, especially when you are controlling it. Monuments and statues are direct reminders of specific incidents in history that seek to not engage with history, but rather preserve a certain telling of it. This is why Liberals love their monuments too.

Confronting certain historical representations (statues) that focus on the history of those who have not only benefited from the historical actor, but those that use the representation of a figure or idea as the illusion of progress shows a particular version of reality where it is for their benefit that the representation through the monument preserves.

I look to examine how underlaying racist politics intersect with “liberal” historical memory and how that reciprocates white progressive myths and allows people who subscribe to what becomes a more “liberal viewpoint” to divert specific narratives and their true affiliation to slavery, anti-Blackness and the white classist bourgeois propaganda which is made possible by worshiping faux-progressive white savior “cultural” statues.

Deconstructing this further means taking a deeper look into certain liberal ideologies and there is no better figure to do this quickly with than Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. We’ll look very briefly at some historical moments and why particular individuals would want to preserve that idea and allude further progression based on their position in society and how whiteness allows them to maintain that position. Praising Lincoln and Roosevelt, liberal or not, is praising and doubling down on white supremacy.

First, why are we debating when a slave holder statue is brought down? Why is there a debate over the President that gave the okay for the largest mass execution in the history of the United States? Why is their outrage for someone who basically said “the only good Indian is a dead one” while taking their Native land and forming a national park system?

I’m going to focus primarily on Lincoln. Liberals (oftentimes) stand in opposition to the physical representation of ideas/symbols that are perceived as “wrong”. Think of this as in the Confederate statues represent slavery, inequality, basically things that their version of America doesn’t tolerate. However, the historical figures that they do hold in high regard, for example the Abe Lincoln statue, represents an illusion of progression as one common moniker is “Lincoln freed the slaves” narrative, which we know not to be entirely true or the rationale behind that move to not be for any progressive thought in racial equality or Black liberation.

This dangerous recollection of history does not take into account the full spectrum of progressive, which in turn allows the Liberal thought to operate on the idea that it is progressive, when in reality it is only the illusion of progress.

The preservation of such imagery carries on the thoughts of it being enough, despite the idea that the work of fighting for equality and against anti-Blackness never stops. Preaching the case that racial justice has been served with the abolition of slavery is simply not enough and everyone must know this to some extent, because we still deal with certain aspects of slavery through modern day policing. Mourning for the statue is the same as mourning for the idea that they are being forced into “progressive” thoughts on current social calls for Black Liberation and the end to modern day policing and the prison system.

SPLC estimates that there have been 102 removed Confederate statues since the death of George Floyd.

One interesting note I have been thinking about is that the calls for Black liberation has led to the long awaited moments of confederates monuments being either deconstructed, removed, or torn down. This seems like it is a true “enough is enough” moment for the representation of public anti-Blackness and historical memory of slavery.

The Confederate States of America is, was and will forever be a very clear visual representation of white supremacy. However, in tearing down the representation of these concepts, it does little to nothing to confront the ideologies held by people who support the assumed same values that the statues had. I am not saying that the statues should not be torn down, by all means, please take down all of them. What I’m suggesting is that along with this, we need a proper understanding of why (not for our own edification), an explanation as to why the statues that remain are there and most importantly, an understanding as to why the idea of monuments do not subscribe to the “no gods, no masters” theories. Stopping hero worship and understanding that ideas need to prevail and not people is important moving forward.

To continue the thought, although the removal of confederate statues is a definite win, however it is surface level remedies in an attempt to avoid the real culprit: the same ideologies and anti-Blackness sentiments that remain in the institutions in society, in policing and in the state. The state removing the hallmarks of their history does nothing to confront the damage they continue to do. New statues will be erected, those that hold white supremacy in a little more hidden fashion- instead of a statue of a slave holder. More “liberal” statues, under the disguise of their faux-progressive nature. The progression being through the specific lens of a society still based in white supremacist ideology.

One item that is common in the articles I’ve read is that monuments do a poor job of engaging a general public with history. If we step back and look at how their history is interpreted, it is largely based on the intersections of a person’s relationship with history and their proximity to whiteness. In the United States, most characters that have statues made to them are largely cis-white men, who more than likely owned slaves or can be held directly responsible for the crimes of imperialism.

The act of removing those statues, by force, goes directly against the liberal ideas of what the statue represents and who it speaks not only to, but for.

Liberal imagery that is thought of to be “good” is related to some kind of moral supremacy (careful choice of words here) which is directly connected to the ruling class in society. Thinking about specific elevated imagery and how they’re represented, for example: statues in front of an art/history museum, speaks to the history that the institution represents and seeks to maintain in society.

The people mourning the loss of their statues (as opposed to mourning for Black lives or Indigenous struggles or for those imprisoned in ICE concentration camps- all which are relevant to current happenings in Portland, Or) are mourning the physical loss of the representation of colonialism and whiteness they’ve lived their entire lives by.

The idea of perceived moral superiority or some kind of high brow pious version of history and how that is thought of as “valuable” in society as a representation of being what is taken from them by having their version of history torn down.Here, equating value to whiteness is the key in which the collective liberal grievance is filed and exposed as “liberal” being just another version of white historical superiority.

Goodbye to the representation of white privilege, which comes along with what seems to be the harsh realization that the loss of power that was represented. Their first soiree into restorative justice and abolition being met with the flowers they leave for slaveholders, imperialist colonizers… racists…murderers.

Monuments represent a particular version of history, More often than not the white version of history. Mourners don’t mourn the actual loss of a physical emblem, they mourn the idea that their version of history is coming to a reckoning with the reality of who those people were affected by their actions.

Erecting a statue to someone who “freed the slaves” is a noble act, however that is just another myth. Dealing in an absolute like that does not encourage the full understanding of the time and what repercussions these statues have today. They preserve that singular idea- a quick talking point- and they never go into detail that Lincoln is the president responsible for America’s largest government sanctioned lynching.

Confronting the lies and half-truths of people’s lives, people who subscribe to the term “liberal” are coming to terms with the ideas that their precious monuments, which they seem to only visit to say goodbye, are not so great as they seem for those who do not benefit from white privilege and white society. Getting people to begin conversations about why the monuments need to come down are talks that need to be had, however I personally think they will not happen and there will only be more division and not enough listening to the cries of the oppressed. These parties would rather grieve over their fallen heroes than listen to the stories of those whose history is not benefitting from that individual or legacy. The will to ignore those people and their stories, typically from BIPOC community members, shows that the failure to interact with our reality, will encourage the nostalgia factor in going back to “how it was” when a particular figure was still a “hero”. This kind of dangerous nostalgia that is being created where liberals speak out against a version of history that isn’t theirs… soon be met again, this time not with figures of more visibly bad actors (for example, a statue of Robert E. Lee), but with their own ideas of liberal figures being challenged (and rightfully so).

We must worry about these people as much as we worry about those far right and alt-right actors. Liberal ideology and the proximity to whiteness may not be as visible in society, but I fear that they have more in common with their supposed “conservative” parties than they think. In the end it was not the actions of my enemy, but the silence of my friends and the rise of the “little Nazis”.

The idea of post-truth being a tool for both sides of the popular american political spectrum and remembering this specific white washed versions of history. Ideologically, it seems that liberals don’t necessarily want to change the status quo to encourage or support Black liberation and abolition of the police. Their stance is rather to leave things how they are as the balance of sitting on the cusp of liberation does not actually allow them to lose anything, while remaining to be benefitting from the society’s order… staying the benefactors of racism, oppression, the american apartheid and protected by the police. Tearing down a statue of their white saviors challenges their place in society, their beliefs and forces them to confront the reality before them, not the faux-progressive myths they propagate.

The system functions like how it is designed to. Systemic racism is symbolized by these monuments, which begs the question of involvement or access to education, ideology, listening and empathizing. And how much all of this has been white-washed, knowing that it is known and accepted, despite all else.